calljdku912fandomcom-20200214-history
Zahra. Chehri. 19) Technological Literacy and Ethical Issues
Technological Literacy Definition: Until the early 1990s, most cell phones were too big for pockets. Movies were unavailable on DVD until 1997. Google didn’t arrive until 1998. There was no MySpace until 2003, and YouTube launched two years after that. As technology advances, the definition of technology literacy changes. In 1980, it meant knowing how to program code. In 1995, it meant knowing how to work basic tools like word processing and spreadsheets. Now the definition of technology literacy is much richer and more complex because there is more information available than ever before. And the tools for finding, using and creating information are rapidly becoming more diverse and sophisticated. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) defines technology literacy as the ability to responsibly use appropriate technology to: *Communicate *Solve problems *Access, manage, integrate, evaluate, design and create information to improve learning in all subject areas *Acquire lifelong knowledge and skills in the 21st century Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology, commonly called STL, andAdvancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program Standards, commonly called AETL, are companion publications that together articulate* a complete set of technological literacy standards* and identify a vision* for developing a technologically literate citizenry. STL identifies content* necessary for K—12 students, including knowledge*, abilities, and the capacity to apply both to the real world. The standards in STL were built around a cognitive* base as well as a doing/activity* base. They include assessment* checkpoints at specific grade levels (K—2, 3—5, 6—8, and 9—12). STLarticulates what needs to be taught in K—12 laboratory-classrooms* to enable all students to develop technological literacy. The goal* is to meet all of the standards through the benchmarks* which are included inSTL. Standards are written statements about what is valued that can be used for making a judgment of quality.STL is NOT a curriculum. AETL identifies the means for the implementation* of STL in K—12 laboratory-classrooms. AETL contains three separate but interrelated sets of standards: student assessment* practices to be used by teachers, professional development* to assure effective* and continuous* in-service* and pre-service* education for teachers of technology, and detailed program* standards that delineate educational requirements used to promote the development of technological literacy. For information regarding the development of STL and AETL, visit Phase II and Phase III respectively in the TfAAP History section. When this page was archived (January 2006) STL had been translated into Finnish, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, and German. The translations could be viewed by visiting the web site of the relevant ITEA International Center. Links to the ITEA International Centers could be accessed by resting the cursor on the About ITEA link in the ITEA navigation on the left side of this page (near the top), and clicking the link labeled ITEA International Centers in the fly out menu. |} ENGINEERING FOR ALL The National Center for Technological Literacy® (NCTL®) has been helping to educate children and adults in a variety of educational settings since 2004. This Museum of Science, Boston initiative is active nationwide via partnerships that seek to raise awareness and understanding of engineering in schools and museums. One of the world's largest science centers and New England's most attended cultural institution, the Museum is ideally positioned to lead the nationwide effort, bringing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) alive for over 1.5 million visitors a year through its exhibits and programs. Find out what's happening in your state. · NCTL's Impact in K-12 Education See how we are changing what is taught in classrooms all around the country. · NCTL's Impact in Museums and Online Not only is NCTL addressing engineering and technology literacy in the classroom, we're making the effort to bring new thinking and understanding to other environments as well. · State of the Nation Degrees in natural sciences and engineering have constituted just over half of all science and engineering baccalaureates since the mid 1990s, but engineering's share has steadily declined from 23% in 1985 to 14% in 2005. (Science & Engineering Indicators, 2008, National Science Board) Technological Literacy: The Key to Education Reform Editor, Science Education What is technological literacy? Why should you even care? It seems that technological literacy is one of the latest buzz phrases in education, but how many have bothered to provide a clear definition? From what I’ve seen, many people simply choose their own definitions based on their personal ideas of what the words “technology” and “literacy” mean. First off, technology has a meaning that varies with time and place. At one time, slate blackboards and chalk were the latest technology in classrooms. They transformed teaching. Today, you could argue that LCD projectors are part of classroom technology along with a host of other gadgets. Outside of the classroom, the range of technology grows to unmanageable proportions and even includes clothes washers. Let’s take technology, for this discussion, to mean technology in the classroom and require that it have an important computer component. Interactive white boards and iPads will fall into this range as will all sorts of computer software. What about literacy? Literally, it means the ability to read and write. However, these days, it’s been extended to mean knowledge or competence in a particular area. I’d like to reserve this definition for another phrase, “technological competence.” Then, technological literacy can take on a very different definition: the ability to understand and evaluate technology. The two definitions do overlap but remain separate because someone can be competent in a technology – able to use it well – and still not be prepared to understand it in a broader context and to evaluate its value and effectiveness in practice. Indeed, the most competent may have substantial biases preventing them from objectively evaluating their particular technology. Why is all of this discussion more than just counting angels dancing on the head of a pin? Technology assaults schools and classrooms daily. School budgets have increasingly larger technology components. Too often, these expensive technologies produce no gains in learning or gains not commensurate with expenditures. Sometimes, learning actually suffers. The blog chatter echoes the situation. Are interactive white boards the new “great white hope?” Will the iPad become the new 1:1 computer for classrooms? Can Google World change learning geography? Will social networks transform the way we learn? And so it goes. The overarching issue surrounding this entire problem focuses on understanding and evaluating technologies, or technological literacy. District and school decision makers must possess this ability, either themselves or in the person of readily available experts. Anyone in the implementation chain must also be able to understand the implications of the decision to use a particular technology. Finally, and most importantly, the classroom teachers must also be technologically literate. If they aren’t, then they are in a position simply to ignore the new technology thrust upon them. All of the costs, all of the decision time, all of the professional development effort – all of these are lost. In other times, this loss would be unfortunate. Today, it’s catastrophic because we’re more or less in an educational crisis. I say “more or less” because it depends on which schools, which students, which measures, and so on that you’re looking at. In the United States, especially in core urban and poor rural schools, the crisis is quite real. The STEM crisis has been written about extensively. Having answered the question of what is technological literacy, this discussion now turns to “Why should you care?” The answer is that technology, like computers, can help us or can really mess us up. The right technologies, all of which may not yet be invented, used properly can alleviate and even entirely remove the current educational crisis. In other words, the solution is at hand, but without technological literacy in our schools right down to the classroom teacher, it won’t be implemented, and we’ll continue down the slope to increasing failure. Of course, knowing this solution does not tell us how to achieve it, only that we must. I’ll leave it to others to analyze how to promote technological literacy among our educators. I hope that our readers will have ideas along these lines and that they’ll be implemented quickly. Technological Literacy Reconsidered In recent years, the term LITERACY has led a life of its own, particularly as it has become linked with certain programs and catchy slogans. There has been no dearth of attempts to promulgate literacy of all kinds -cultural literacy, adult literacy (read that as ill''iteracy), computer literacy, geographic literacy, ecological literacy, critical literacy, visual literacy (the study of film), scientific literacy and, yes, technological literacy. Those are all honest intentions to have people become more conversant with the wealth of information about the world and the way in which people should function in it. The difficulty with some of them is that the term is used as if the user knew what it meant. ''SAYING a term and KNOWING it are entirely different kinds of human behaviors. To be more pointed, because one uses the term technological literacy does not, in any way, carry with it an understanding of the meaning of technological literacy. Is there any danger in using terms unknowingly and indiscriminately? "Unless we are emphatic in what we advocate... we will have another round of failure." says Hawkins (1990, p. 1) in discussing the roots of literacy. Much as we may want to deny it, people can, and do, live without the faintest notion of the nature of technology. They may use technology and its products; but, by no stretch of the imagination could they be described as knowledgeable consumers of technology. Perhaps we need to start over and quiz ourselves as to what a literate person is, forgetting, for the moment, modifiers such as cultural, geographic or technological. Many attempts to develop literacy carry with them the connotation that literacy, in general, is going to hell in a hand basket. That is not true. For the last century and a half, literacy has been increasing in the United States. In 1850, only one in ten persons could read and write. Now we think it is a tragedy if everyone can't read and write. Statistics prepared by the U.S. government indicate that the literacy rate in the U.S. is in the high ninety percentage range. We know that it is not the case, for many students leaving high school cannot read or write. The difficulty lies partially in definitions. From a governmental point of view, anyone who has completed fifth grade is literate. Any educator knows that is a faulty definition. The governmental definition of literacy may serve political purposes, but from a functional point of view it is useless. Stripping away the verbiage, literacy is the ability to encode and decode a message. If one encodes and decodes very well, he is well-educated at most, or at the least, he can read and write very well. In other words, there is a minimum level of attainment if one is to be literate, but at the same time, there is a range of literacy. The same conditions must apply to technological literacy. That is, technological literacy requires the ability of an individual to code and encode technological messages. Encoding and decoding means what? The answer is easy in regard to language. It means being able to understand and use words and their meanings. However, let us be certain to make the distinction between orality (speaking a language) and literacy (being able to read and write the language as well as speak it). It's equally easy to define a person who is NUMERATE, for that person can code and encode in numbers and form. In discussing literacy, Csikszentmihalyi (1990, p. 119) provokes thought about what technological literacy might be when he says, "Literacy presupposes the existence of a shared symbol system that mediates information between the individual's mind and external events." What is the symbol system, if any, that characterizes technology and describes its essence? But first, for purposes of clarification, let's examine what is meant by the words "shared" and "symbol." SYMBOLS AND LITERACY A symbol is any entity that refers to any other entity that may or may not be present. Those entities may be material or abstract and include such things as words, numbers, pictures, diagrams, maps, and almost anything so long as it is interpreted and used as representing some kind of information. Symbols are to be found alone or arranged in a system. Symbols can function alone as meaningful entities; but very commonly, they enter as components or elements in a more highly elaborated system. Thus, words figure in spoken or written language; numbers and other abstract symbols in mathematical languages; gestures and other movement patterns within dance systems; and the like. And a considerable range of meanings can be effectively conveyed when entire symbol systems are used; mastering the deployment and the interpretation (the 'reading' and the 'writing') of such symbol systems constitute a major task for every growing child. (Gardner, 1983, p. 303) A shared symbol system is simply one that has common meanings and communicates much the same information to a group of people. The group may be large or small, but the symbols have similar information value. Both symbols and symbol systems attain their greatest value in terms of their symbolic products such as: poetry, stage plays, stories, rituals of all kinds, and problem solutions. Could we add the products of technology or the processes of technology to the list? Is there a limit to the number of symbol systems, or can any symbols bear- ranged into a system? Those questions are keys in trying to understand technological literacy. Does technology have a shared symbol system? The question is rhetorical, leading only to speculation rather than definitive answers. Some would argue that problemsolving, so central to technology, represents a shared symbol system. Then, there are others who might claim that the "technological method" (Savage and Sterry, 1990) is the system of symbols indigenous to technology. Still others imply that the shared symbol system of technology is either a quality of consciousness, a mastery of tools, or both. The fact of the matter is that we have no clear identification of the shared symbol system that may be unique to technology and that, therefore, confuses the matter of achievement of technological literacy. The result is that there is a welter of positions regarding technological literacy. LITERATURE ON TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY Many people have written on the subject of technological literacy, all of whom are to be commended for their efforts to describe the complexities of the individual who is literate in technology. Hayden (1989), after a literature review, takes the position that technological literacy is having knowledge and abilities to select and apply appropriate technologies in a given context. While not revealing the source of his thoughts, Steffens (1986, p. 117-118) claims that technological literacy involves knowledge and comprehension of technology and its uses; skills, including tool skills as well as evaluation skills; and, attitudes about new technologies and their application. This insight is similar to that of Owen and Heywood (1986) who say there are three components to technological literacy: the technology of making things; the technology of organization; and, the technology of using information. Applying a Delphi technique to opinions expressed by experts, Croft (1991) evolved a panel of characteristics of a technologically literate student. Those are: abilities to make decisions about technology; possession of basic literacy skills required to solve technology problems; ability to make wise decisions about uses of technology; ability to apply knowledge, tools and skills for the benefit of society; and, ability to describe the basic technology systems of society. Johnson (1989) conceives of technological literacy to be subsumed under scientific literacy with the former type of person having an understanding of the generation of new technology, its control and its uses. The 1991 Yearbook of the Council on Technology Teacher Education is devoted entirely to the subject of technological literacy. This volume examines technological literacy from a variety of angles: its need, as a goal, as a concept, as a program, societal factors influencing it, and in terms of curriculum organization. In this volume Todd (1991, p. 10) says, "Technological literacy is a term of little meaning and many meanings." Later in the same text (p. 11) he makes the statement, "Currently we are unsure whether we are using technological literacy to represent a slogan, a concept, a goal, or a program." The observation has merit. The literature on technological literacy (going far beyond the sources quoted above) seems to place emphasis on conceptual material, e.g., understandings, knowledge, decision making, etc., and much less emphasis on tool skills, shaping materials, and modeling. This observation, if valid, makes one wonder how so little in the way of praxis could possibly describe a technologically literate person when the RAISON D'ETRE of technology education is the use of tools, machines and materials. A second inference to be drawn from the literature is the absence of recog- nition that until technology education has defined its intellectual domain, it is fruitless to try to describe a technologically literate person. The exception to this observation is the opinion expressed by Lewis and Gagel (1992, p. 136) who say, "...to further the goal of technological literacy, schools would seem to have two clear responsibilities; first, to articulate the disciplinary structure of technology and, second, to provide for its authentic expression in the curriculum." The remark is squarely on target and deserves further comment. INTELLECTUAL DOMAIN AND TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY When one thinks carefully about technological literacy, it is easy to recognize it as an outcome measure. That is, it comes as a result of what is in the curriculum and methods used by the teacher to impart the curriculum. But from whence comes the curriculum? From individual teacher whimsy? From the opinions of an "expert"? The proper answer is that "...the inherent structure of any discipline is the only proper source of learning content; ..." (Inlow, p. 15,emphasis added). Does technology education have a structured body of knowledge, of organizing concepts, of underlying ideas and fundamental principles that define it as an academic discipline? It does not. And because it doesn't, it follows that there is no valid way of determining curriculum content. "If that be true, how can we even hope that technological literacy will be achieved by students if technology education has no structured domain of knowledge. They could not." (Waetjen, p. 8) As a profession, technology education has been preoccupied with the concept of technological literacy -or so it seems, judging by the wealth of literature of the subject. If that same amount of thought and energy had been directed to defining technology education as an academic discipline, it would be far better off as a profession. It is interesting to speculate whether technology education would have higher prestige if that had happened; or, if fewer technology education programs would have been eliminated. The precursor to the pursuit of the holy grail of technological literacy is for technology education to take concrete steps to establish itself as an academic discipline. It will take more than strong statements or hastily conceived position papers. Those would serve only to make technology education "an enterprise of methodical guessing", to use Bertrand Russell's words. To become an academic discipline, technology education must specify four things. First, it will have to identify an intellectual domain consisting of a body of credible organized knowledge that is unique, is related to man's concerns in living, and is an array of ideas related in sequential fashion. Second, an academic discipline has a history of the organizing concepts that constitute its domain. Third, there must be a clear delineation of the modes of inquiry by which the discipline validates itself, creates new knowledge, and advances as a discipline. Finally, an academic discipline must be instructive; curriculum content must derive from its intellectual domain. (For a fuller discussion of these four elements, see Waetjen, 1992). Had technology education directed its efforts to the above four elements, it would be on far firmer intellectual ground in its debates and writings on technological literacy. It is not possible to define technological literacy, or measure it, in the absence of an agreed upon intellectual domain for technology education. END NOTES No matter how the intellectual domain of technology and its resulting curriculum are ultimately defined, there will then be a logical basis for determining the nature of technological literacy. To speculate on the nature of the first two of those three considerations is entirely outside the scope of this discourse. Yet, they will be the genesis of the third consideration -technoogical literacy. Because of that line of conceptual evolution, we must wait to crystallize the full meaning of technological literacy; but, there are some things that can be said about it now, simply because it is an outcome phenomenon, a human learning. If technological literacy is based on a symbol system of some sort (and it probably is) then, like the learning of all other symbol systems, there will be developmental variations in its achievement. A student at age ten may be technologically literate, but at age fifteen may not be. Obviously, there are implications regarding teachers' expectations in this connection and so are there implications for those who write about technological literacy and those who seek to measure it. Technological literacy is not an all-or-none learning and should not be described in those terms. When the profession gets around to deining technological literacy according to the process described above, care will have to be taken to define it at''MINIMUM'' for any given developmental stage. The literature too often implies grandiose or maximal levels of achievement of literacy in technology. Caution is predicated by the fact that a given student, for example, may be highly literate when it comes to electronics and considerably less literate about systems of manufacture. That unevenness may be due to variations in teaching, to curriculum content, to student interests, or to a host of other reasons. Whatever the case, the unevenness is not to be decried, for it is an indication of individual human development. In a world replete with those who swear at or swear by technology, those in the profession must use the term technological literacy with caution. It surely cannot be a neutrally intended term since it is related to educational endeavors and all such endeavors are laden with purpose or value, whether we like it or not, and whether we intend it or not. How can we possibly convince parents, et al, that technology education is to be included in the curriculum, and young people are to become technologically literate, if we don't have clearly in mind the intellectual domain of technology education, or the purposes served by a person becoming technologically literate? Ethical Issued in Technology Ethics in technology is a subfield of ethics addressing the ethical questions specific to the Technology Age. Some prominent works ofphilosopher Hans Jonas are devoted to ethics of technology. It is often held that technology itself is incapable of possessing moral or ethical qualities, since "technology" is merely tool making. But many now believe that each piece of technology is endowed with and radiating ethical commitments all the time, given to it by those that made it, and those that decided how it must be made and used. Whether merely a lifeless amoral 'tool' or a solidified embodiment of human values "ethics of technology" refers to two basic subdivisions:- · The ethics involved in the development of new technology—whether it is always, never, or contextually right or wrong to invent and implement a technological innovation. · The ethical questions that are exacerbated by the ways in which technology extends or curtails the power of individuals—how standard ethical questions are changed by the new powers. In the former case, ethics of such things as computer security and computer viruses asks whether the very act of innovation is an ethically right or wrong act. Similarly, does a scientist have an ethical obligation to produce or fail to produce a nuclear weapon? What are the ethical questions surrounding the production of technologies that waste or conserve energy and resources? What are the ethical questions surrounding the production of new manufacturing processes that might inhibit employment, or might inflict suffering in the third world? In the latter case, the ethics of technology quickly break down into the ethics of various human endeavors as they are altered by new technologies. For example, bioethics is now largely consumed with questions that have been exacerbated by the new life-preserving technologies, new cloning technologies, and new technologies for implantation. In law, the right of privacy is being continually attenuated by the emergence of new forms of surveillance and anonymity. The old ethical questions of privacy and free speech are given new shape and urgency in an Internet age. Such tracing devices as RFID, biometric analysis and identification, genetic screening, all take old ethical questions and amplify their significance. Technology Ethical Considerations As technology changes and impacts the practice of law, how does it affect the scope of liability for our actions? At what point does technological advancement cease to be merely our preference, but instead mandated by our ethical obligations as lawyers? Do we have an obligation to use e-mail, incorporate automated legal and non-legal research, document assembly, full text search systems, and the latest document imaging? If technology is available at a low cost to search a deposition in seconds for key testimony, is it unethical to charge your client for the hours it takes you to do it manually? These are becoming difficult questions as we transition into the technology age. The recurring question is, have our actions been reasonable in light of the changing technology environment? Once we begin using technology, whole new sets of ethical issues arise. For example, is it ethically proper to use e-mail without encryption? What is the impact of participating and providing advice in newsgroups, chatrooms and listservs? Should we use cookies as we surf the web for case information? Are there sniffers or spoofers on your system? Are you providing adequate safeguards for on-line attempts to infiltrate your computer system? What about off-line safeguards such as undoing the UNDELETE command on your files created in a word processor. These are a few of the issues that are arising as we transition to a digital practice from an analog system. Attorneys frequently encounter issues implicating ethical and professional considerations in the application and non-application of technology in their practices. The framework for the law guiding the conduct of attorneys consists of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted by the ABA in 1983 to replace the Model Code of Professional Responsibility and adopted by the majority of states), the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility (adopted by the ABA in 1969 and still followed in the minority of jurisdictions), the opinions of ethics advisory committees of the ABA and the states, and the decisions of federal and state courts concerning professional conduct. It is important that one check the specific state ethic rules and cases for specific guidance on your special circumstances. State by state rules are located at www.legalethics.com. This ethics web site now offers the following direct links for each state: · Advertising Rules; · Confidentiality Rules; · Ethics Opinions; · Bar Association; · Disciplinary Contact Information; and · Government Ethics (ethics commissions, lobbyist databases, election agencies, candidate finance data; and independent organizations tracking government ethics.